Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Father Chief Justice: A Constitutional Play

Actor, playwright, and Con Law Prof Paul Baier (LSU) will take his play "Father Chief Justice" Edward Douglass White and the Constitution to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, March 8, 2011.  (He previously staged it, to great acclaim, at the AALS Annual Conference.)

 

Here are the details:

"Father Chief Justice" Edward Douglass White and the Constitution

Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.

Coolidge Auditorium, Jefferson Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave, SE, Washington, DC

RSVP tada@loc.gov or call Tynesha Adams at 202.707.5065

Check out the announcement for more information and a list of cast members (notable, all).

SDS

Campbell Law Review Symposium

The Campbell Law Review will host its 2011 symposium on May 18, 2011.  Here's the announcement:

The Campbell Law Review presents its annual 2011 symposium:

Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Christianity: Perspectives on the Influence of Christianity on Classical Liberal Legal Thought

The conference will consider the relationship between liberalism and Christianity and their influence on American constitutionalism.  The conference will investigate the extent to which classical liberalism and Christianity influenced the formulation of the Constitution and the thought of the Founding era.  It will focus on the importance of the foundational Christian commitments to characteristic notions of religious toleration and freedom of association as they are borne out in the thought of the Founders and the founding era.

The conference will be hosted on May 18, 2011, at Campbell University School of Law, located in Raleigh, North Carolina.  The following presenters will be featured:

Professor Robert F. Cochran, Director of the Herbert and Elinor Nootbaar Institute of Law, Religion, and Ethics and the Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law, Professor John M. Breen, Loyola University Chicago School of Law; Professor Bruce P. Frohnen, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law; Professor Michael Scaperlanda, University of Oklahoma College of Law; Professor Barry Shain, Colgate University; Professor John Inazu, Visiting Professor, Duke University School of Law; Professor Anthony Baker, Visiting Professor, John Marshall Law School; Professor C. Scott Pryor, Visiting Professor, Campbell University School of Law; Dean Donald R. McConnell, Trinity Law School.

All are invited.  Attendees may find more details and register here.

SDS

NY's Chief Judge Lippman to Speak about Right to Counsel in Civil Cases

There is a growing movement for a right to an attorney in civil cases, sometimes known as a civil Gideon, coupled with increased funding for civil legal services and legal aid.  We've discussed the right to counsel in civil litigation here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Judge Jonathan Lippman has recently written in the NY Law Journal that:

At best, only 20 percent of the civil legal needs of low-income New Yorkers are being met today. Providers have no choice but to turn away vast numbers of eligible clients, including eight out of every nine in New York City.

One result of this deepening crisis is that the courts are seeing an ever-expanding number of unrepresented litigants. We heard testimony from judges, clients, lawyers and others about what happens when litigants try to navigate the courts without counsel.

Befitting his role as chief judge of New York's highest court, Lippman is not making any constitutional arguments.  Instead, he posits that there is a "moral and ethical obligation" as well as making efficiency and effectiveness claims.  He suggests that

the state begin to reduce the unmet civil legal services needs in those matters that concern the "essentials of life": a roof over one's head, family stability, personal safety free from domestic violence, access to health care and education, or subsistence income and benefits.

This is the recommendation in the Report issued by The Task Force to Expand Legal Services in New York; Judge Lippman presided over the hearings held throughout the state.   A New York Times Editorial essentially endorsed the Task Force's recommendation.

Lippman will be speaking at City University of New York School of Law on Thursday, February 3, about the right to an attorney in civil cases. 

 

 

Admission is free

RSVP required: alumnioffice@mail.law.cuny.edu

 

UPDATE: Discussion of event in New York Law Journal, February 7, 2011.

 RR

Marriage Panel at AALS

We've previously posted on the problems of marriage monopoly under constitutional federalism and the E-marriage solution proposed by Mae Kuykendall and Adam Candeub. 

The topic will be under discussion at AALS this January on a "hot topics" panel scheduled for January 7, 2011 at 4.00 pm.  Panelists include:

Mae Kuykendall, MSU College of Law, Moderator
Adam Candeub, MSU College of Law, Presentation of the E-Marriage Concept
Larry Ribstein, Illinois College of Law, Critical Analysis
Anita Bernstein, Brooklyn Law College, Commentary on Marriage Essentials
Monu Bedi, Stetson School of Law, The Military Context
Aviva Abramovsky, Syracuse College of Law, State Export of Other Legal Arrangements
June Carbone, UMKC School of Law, Redefining Law and Geography

 

RR

Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention

The theme of the 2010 National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution."

The event is November 18- 20 in Washington, D.C.  

Speakers include Senator from Kentucky Mitch McConnell, John Yoo, ConLaw Prof Randy Barnett, James Bopp, and Attorney General of Virginia Kenneth Cuccinelli.  The Annual Dinner on Thursday evening will feature an interview of Justice Antonin Scalia, with Jan Crawford of CBS News, and the Friday evening lecture is by Judge Dennis Jacobs (pictured right) of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

More information and registration here.

RR

How Democratic is the Constitution?

That's the question that participants will address at Loyola's (Chicago) Constitutional Law Colloquium this Friday and Saturday, November 5 and 6.

 

This first annual Loyola conference brings together constitutional law scholars at all stages of their professional development to discuss current projects, doctrinal developments in constitutional law, and future goals.  Loyola Profs John Nowak, Alexander Tsesis, and Michael Zimmer put together a terrific program; this promises to be a wonderful event.  Professor Lawrence Solum (Illinois) will speak at the lunch on Friday.

For more information, including presenters' biographies and abstracts, check out the Colloquium web-site.

SDS

Lawyering in the Age of Terror: Panel Discussion

In New York City, October 27, 2010:

 

 
 
 RR

 

Loyola U-Chicago Constitutional Law Conference

More information and registration here.

 

 

 

 

RR

Regulatory Takings Conference at UC-Berkeley

Is the "takings revolution" over?  This conference "explores the regulatory takings issue as it relates to land use and environmental regulation" and "brings together a diverse group of leading scholars and experienced practitioners to discuss cutting-edge issues raised by recent and pending court cases and new regulatory initiatives."

 

"Some topics to be discussed include the Supreme Court's recent Stop the Beach Renourishment decision, the future of the "judicial takings" theory, takings questions raised by sea level rise and other consequences of climate change, controversial new decisions applying an expansive interpretation of the Penn Central analysis, and recent takings cases involving water and endangered species laws."

For more information: Brochure  and registration (through Vermont Law School).

RR

Federalism, Criminal Law and Immigration Conference

Karla McKanders (pictured left), University of Tennessee College of Law,  and Jennifer Chacon (pictured right), University California Irvine School of Law, are among the speakers at the November 5, 2010 Symposium on Federalism to be held at Loyola Law New Orleans. 

Bill Ong Hing (pictured below) University of San Francisco will deliver the keynote. 

More information here.

 

RR

State Constitutionalism Conference at Penn State

 

Registration and more information here.

RR

Constitution and Criminal Justice Conference at FSU

More information and registration information here.

 

RR

ABA Resolves that States Adopts Same-Sex Marriage

The ABA overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging state (as well as territorial and tribal) governments to permit same-sex marriage:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.

The Recommendation came from the Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities in addition to more than two dozen other ABA divisions and organizations including the New York State Bar Association,  the Massachusetts Bar Association, the ABA General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm Division, the ABA Young Lawyers Division, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

The Executive Summary for this Resolution does not make explicit constitutional arguments, but does specifically mention the inequality of other-than-marriage schemes:

1. Summary of the Recommendation

The recommendation urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex.

2. Summary of the Issue that the Resolution Addresses

Excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry has the practical impact of denying them and their children a host of rights and responsibilities that exist under both state and federal law. State protections automatically extended to married spouses include the ability to make health care decisions for one’s spouse, the right to direct the remains of a deceased spouse and inherit from his or her estate absent a will, the security of being able to provide health insurance for one’s spouse, and the peace of mind knowing that both adults’ relationships with children born to the couple will be protected. In a comprehensive report adopted in 2005, the New York State Bar Association documented numerous areas in which New York law, for example, provides specific rights and benefits reserved to married couples. On the federal level, there are at least 1138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining whether an individual is eligible for federal rights or benefits, including family medical leave, health insurance benefits, and Social Security survivor benefits. In addition, the denial of these important protections harms the hundreds of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples. The experiences of those states that have created legal relationships such as domestic partnerships that are intended to mirror the attributes of marriage, make plain that these separate and inferior systems perpetuate rather than cure the inequality that results from denying marital recognition to same-sex couples.

3. Please Explain How the Proposed Policy Position will Address the Issue

For over 30 years, ABA policy has kept pace with our society’s evolving understanding that gay and lesbian people are healthy, functioning contributors to our society who face discrimination – both as individuals and as families. Over that time, the ABA has taken a leading role in urging the elimination of discrimination against lesbian and gay people and their families. This recommendation – urging the elimination of legal barriers to civil marriage between same-sex couples -- builds upon this prior policy.

4. Summary of Minority Views

No minority views or opposition have been identified.

The Resolution and Recommendation is available as part of the Annual Meeting Executive Summaries, here (San Francisco Annual Meeting, page 164-165).  The  Resolution and Recommendation is also available with a supporting detailed report here.

RR

The Individual Health Care Mandate and Enumerated Powers at SEALS

The Southeastern Association of Law Schools, or SEALS, a regional organization that also includes affiliate schools from around the country, kicked off its annual conference on Friday.  The program includes a number of constitutional law panels, perhaps most notably this one on the last day, Thursday, August 5:

The Individual Health Care Mandate and Enumerated Powers, sponsored by the Federalist Society

Shortly after the health care reform bill was signed into law, the attorneys general of 20 states filed lawsuits challenging the individual mandate as exceeding Congress's powers.  This panel will consider the mandate's constitutionality, as well as procedural issues presented by the litigation.

Speakers:  Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown; Mr. David Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute; Professor Gilliam Metzger, Columbia; Professor Jack Balkin, Yale

For a preview, check out one of Balkin's latest posts on the topic at Balkinization and Barnett's interview last weekend in the Wall Street Journal.

We've posted most recently here.

SDS

Assistant AG Perez on Restoring the Civil Rights Agenda

Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, will talk Monday evening at an American Constitution Society function on issues important to the Division and efforts to strengthen civil rights enforcement around the country. 

 

The event runs from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, in the first-floor Gompers Room at the AFL-CIO headquarters at 815 16th Street, NW, in Washington D.C.  Register here.

SDS

Cato Debate on Electoral College

The Cato Institute is hosting a policy forum today on the electoral college featuring Tara Ross, author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College and John Koza, the founder of the National Popular Vote Plan.  The forum is moderated by Roger Pilon, Cato's Vice President for Legal Affairs.

Here's the description:

The Electoral College has been a staple of American presidential elections since the nation's founding, but it may not be for long: a new legislative effort has been gaining momentum in state legislatures and could soon fundamentally change presidential elections as we know them.  A California-based group, National Popular Vote, hopes to convince a critical mass of state legislatures to sign an interstate compact that will dictate a new method of allocating presidential electors: rather than states allocating electors as they do now, NPV wants states to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.  The compact has been approved in five states (61 electoral votes) and is currently being considered in three other states (46 electoral votes).  Three additional state legislatures approved the compact but did not receive gubernatorial approval (62 electoral votes).  The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes have signed the agreement.  At this critical moment in the progress of NPV's legislation, Tara Ross and John R. Koza will debate the benefits and detriments of both NPV and the Electoral College.  Should the Electoral College be retained?  If not, is NPV's solution a good one, or might there be unintended logistical ramifications?  Should Electoral College opponents instead go through the formal constitutional amendment process?

We last posted on Electoral College issues here.

SDS

Participatory Democracy Theorists: Panel of Interest

This panel discussion (evening of July 8 in NYC) should be of interest to ConLawProfs whose work includes notions of participatory democracy. 

From the panel description:

The fantasy of participation is a powerful one, postulating, as it does, the invitation and inclusion of everyone, everywhere. The Internet, we are told, makes this dream a reality, erasing borders and distinctions, smoothing out differences and hierarchies. We are all equal now, because we believe everyone’s voice can be heard. Political theorist Jodi Dean calls this “communicative capitalism,” an ideological formation that fetishizes speech, opinion, and participation.

With participation now a dominant paradigm, structuring social interaction, art, activism, the architecture of the city, and the economy, we are all integrated into participatory structures whether we want to be or not. How are artists and activists navigating the participation paradigm, mapping the limits of collaboration, and modeling participatory forms of critical engagement?

More information here. 

If you can't make the presentation, there are a host of other events during the exhibit and you could (should!) add Professor Dean's website and books (especially Democracy and other Neo-Liberal Fantasies) to your summer reading list.

RR

Supreme Court Review Panel: American Constitution Society

American Constitution Society Panel:  Supreme Court Term 2009-2010 with Moderator, Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LL, and panelists: Paul Butler, Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Carville Dickinson Benson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Paul D. Clement, Partner, King & Spalding, and former Solicitor General of the United States; Doug Kendall, President, Constitutional Accountability Center; Elisa Massimino, President and Chief Executive Officer, Human Rights First; Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP, and Visiting Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School; Virginia A. Seitz, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP; and Monica Youn, Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law's Democracy Program.

RR

Con Law Colloquium at Loyola Chicago

The Loyola University Chicago Law School recently announced the line-up for its fall con law colloquium titled How Democratic is the Constitution?  The colloquium will take place at the Philip H. Corboy Law Center at Loyola in Chicago starting Friday morning, November 5, 2010, and running through midday Saturday, November 6, and includes con law profs from around the country. 

 

From the announcement:

This is the first annual Loyola conference bringing together constitutional law scholars at all stages of their professional development to discuss current projects, doctrinal developments in constitutional law, and future goals. 

SDS

Al Franken at American Constitution Society National Convention

In a speech at the American Constitution Society National Convention, Senator Al Franken sharply criticized the Roberts Court and the Federalist Society. 

Franken's remarks are available in transcript; audio; and video at the ACS website.

While Franken acknowledges he is "one of the few non-lawyers in the room," and not an academic,  he nevertheless delves into constitutional theory and recent cases to support his point that the Court's decisions matter to "ordinary people."   He disavows originalism by linking it with Robert Bork and ultimately concludes: "Originalism isn't a pillar of our Constitutional history.  It's a talking point."  He critiques Roberts' "judges as umpires" metaphor with reference to a case by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1866.  He discusses cases such as Lochner and Citizens United, but also Stoneridge, Conkright, Leegin, Iqbal, Exxon, Rapanos, Circuit City, and Ledbetter.  He also mentions recent proposals to "prioritize" internet service and how that might impact the flow of information.

For those teaching summer school - - - perhaps a comparative constitutional law course outside of the States?? or a legal theory course for non-law students?? - - - this could be the foundation of a good class exercise.  One could assign students to write a response or to select one of Franken's points and fully support it.

RR